Re: clearinghouses (or not)

>> I disagree with how you apply them. Ultimately, the aggregates
>> make allocation decisions, not the the SM. It makes no difference
>> whether the client talks directly to an aggregate (initially to request
>> resources and later to control the resources it was allocated) or
>> funnels those allocation-requests/control-requests through an
>> intermediate SM (which is really serving an aggregation function...
>> to overload that term).
>
> I disagree with this.  It does matter, since in the former case the
> Clearinghouse cannot control allocation decisions, and in the latter
> case it can.   I am assuming that your SM serves some Clearinghouse
> function.  I also partially disagree with the assertion that only
> aggregates make allocation decisions.
>
> In Orca, AMs delegate partial control over allocation decisions to
> Clearinghouses.  So, while AMs may have the final say about who gets
> resources and when, when they delegate some of this power to a
> Clearinghouse we assume that they are trustworthy (e.g., they aren't
> lying to the Clearinghouse; if they are they get punished).  In this
> case the user goes through the Clearinghouse for allocation decisions
> (e.g., requests tickets), and then redeems tickets at an AM (e.g., to
> control resources through an API exposed by the AM).  So requests here
> do not go directly to the AM.
>
> -David
>